Behind the Wall: How Age, Gender, and Type of Violence Influence Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In legal and public domains, the perception of intimate partner violence (IPV) is influenced by a range of legal and extra-legal factors. The present study was designed to investigate how jurors’ perceptions of IPV incidents are influenced by the type of violence perpetrated, the age of the couple involved, and the gender of the perpetrator and victim. Undergraduate participants (N= 576) were presented with an IPV vignette, a case judgement questionnaire, and several self-report measures. Vignettes differed according to the gender of the perpetrator (man/woman in a heterosexual relationship), the type of violence perpetrated (physical/sexual/psychological/financial), and the age of the couple (18/30/45/65). Participants’ overall assessment of IPV scenarios (i.e., how violent/severe) as well as their general perceptions of IPV, ageing populations, and traditional gender roles were measured. In general, participants perceived violence perpetrated by men as more violent, severe, and requiring criminal justice intervention more frequently than IPV perpetrated by women. Victim fear also was rated higher when the perpetrator was a man. Overall, physical violence was rated as the most severe, fear-provoking, and violent than financial, psychological, and sexual violence. Interestingly, sexual violence was perceived as the least common type of violence within ageing populations (65 years old). Finally, exploratory findings suggest that persons who minimize IPV and fail to see the necessity for criminal justice intervention, are those who endorse attitudes associated with hostile sexism and traditional gender roles. Results from this study have important implications for legal personnel concerning biases present in the assessment of IPV cases. Department: Psychology Faculty Mentor: Dr. Kristine Peace
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".